The Methanol Alternative

The New Atlantis ^ | Summer 2006 | Robert Zubrin

[Delacon]

ny serious energy policy must deal with three critical issues. First, economic: The policy must provide an energy resource base sufficient to allow for continued worldwide economic growth for the foreseeable future. Second, environmental: The policy must be compatible with the long-term flourishing of life on Earth, including human life and civilization. And finally, strategic: The policy must ensure that control of the Earth’s energy resources, and thus its future, lies in the hands of free societies committed to human progress, and taken away from tyrannical and terrorism-promoting states.

George Olah, recipient of the 1994 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, is one of the giants of twentieth-century science, and his coauthors are solid technical men. Together they have written a profoundly important book on energy policy, laying out the basis for a technically achievable approach to all three dimensions of the energy problem.

There is no shortage of energy experts with grand designs and proposals—from technophile dreams of an unworkable “hydrogen economy,” to Malthusian calls for enforced economic limits through conservation, to socialist schemes for creating massive government-subsidized synthetic-fuel industries, to the libertarian faith in the Invisible Hand. Compared to such misguided alternatives, the competence and rationality of The Methanol Economy is refreshing.

The authors begin by describing the dimensions of the worldwide energy problem: Even as our reserves of fossil fuels have grown in recent decades, the demand is growing faster, and as more of the world modernizes, a global energy “crunch” looms. From here, they turn their attention to renewable energy sources and nuclear power, and then they offer a thorough refutation of the technical feasibility of the “hydrogen economy.” This widely-touted panacea cannot work because it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it yields, because hydrogen is an excessively low-density medium for storing chemical energy, and because an entirely new multi-billion-dollar fuel distribution infrastructure would have to be created to support hydrogen vehicles before any could be sold.

The heart of the book outlines a proposed technical solution to the energy problem. The authors don’t propose new ways of generating energy, arguing that “all feasible alternative and renewable energy sources must be considered and used,” nuclear energy “above all.” Instead, they focus on “the challenges of how to store and best use energy.”

The authors dub their proposal the “methanol economy.” Methanol is commonly known as “wood alcohol” because it can be produced from wood; it can also be made from coal, natural gas, methane hydrates, any type of biomass, or urban waste. It can be used as fuel for internal-combustion engines, and eventually in fuel-cell vehicles. It can also be used as feedstock for producing dimethyl ether, an excellent fuel for non-polluting diesel engines. In short, it is a convenient medium for storing energy and is easily transported and dispensed as a fuel.

Integrating methanol into our energy system would have numerous benefits in the not-so-distant future. As the authors point out, it would make the transportation of liquid natural gas much safer by converting it to less-hazardous liquid methanol before shipping it. Methanol could also be used to produce plastics, synthetic fabrics, and many other non-fuel products currently made from petroleum.

Importantly, methanol can also be produced (in conjunction with an auxiliary electricity source, like nuclear power) by chemically recycling carbon dioxide, which can be found naturally in the air or readily captured from atmosphere-polluting industrial emissions. The methanol produced can, in turn, be used to produce synthetic hydrocarbons and other products now obtained from fossil fuels. If successfully tapped, methanol “has the ability to liberate mankind from its dependence on fossil fuels for transportation and hydrocarbon products,” while reducing the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere.

Consider ethanol as a comparison. The commercial competitiveness of ethanol is somewhat confused by the complex influences of a variety of subsidies and tariffs. By contrast, methanol is currently selling—without any subsidy—for about $0.80/gallon. Given that methanol’s energy content is about half that of gasoline, that price is the equivalent, in energy terms, of gasoline for $1.60/gallon. In other words, we can produce a useful and economically viable vehicle fuel, using a huge domestic and Western hemispheric resource base, at prices lower than gasoline.

So if the economic and strategic questions can be answered, that leaves the matter of methanol and the environment. The authors deal with environmental concerns in a cool, thorough, and methodical fashion. Unlike ethanol, which is edible, methanol is toxic—but so is gasoline. However, unlike gasoline or petroleum, methanol is soluble in water and readily biodegradable by common bacteria, so spills of methanol, whether from defective pumping stations or shipwrecked tankers, would have no long-term environmental impact. Furthermore, as the authors demonstrate, the toxicity of methanol is commonly overstated. In point of fact, methanol is present naturally in fresh fruit, and so low doses of methanol have always been a normal part of the human diet. Unlike gasoline, methanol is not a carcinogen or a mutagen, and the pollutants and other emissions from methanol-powered internal combustion engines are far more benign than emissions from their gasoline-driven counterparts. (Automobile emissions could even be reduced to zero with methanol-based fuel cells.) And if methanol is produced from carbon dioxide or from biomass, its use in place of petroleum acts to counter man-made global warming as well. “Compared to gasoline or diesel fuel,” the authors conclude, “methanol is clearly environmentally much safer and less toxic.”

The book’s greatest shortcoming is in its policy recommendations. It has none. While describing the technological basis for a future world of progress, freedom, economic development, and an acceptable environment, the authors offer no plan for how to make it happen. Given the highly technical and scientific orientation of the authors, this is perhaps understandable, but it is unfortunate.

Indeed, by focusing on the best technical solution without regard to policy implications, the authors sail past essential matters without stopping to seize them. This is most evident on the subject of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs), automobiles that can operate with gasoline and/or various mixtures of gasoline and alcohol. The most common FFVs in the United States are E85 or M85, meaning that they can function with up to 85 percent ethanol or methanol and 15 percent gasoline. On the subject of FFVs, Olah and his colleagues say:

Although the flexibility of the FFVs represent a powerful means to circumvent the fuel supply conundrum, and also a way to build up the demand for methanol, it must be borne in mind that this is only a compromise.... In the long term, the use of cars optimized to run only on methanol (M100) would be preferable, and would also greatly facilitate the transition to methanol-powered fuel cell vehicles.

Yet without the short term, there is no long term. The authors are correct that, in the abstract, “cars optimized to run only on methanol” would be preferable. But such cars would find no buyers today—because there are no pumps to fuel them, nor will there be, until millions of such cars are on the road. Thus the FFVs, which can run on a combination of gasoline, methanol, and/or ethanol, are not “only a compromise.” Rather, they are the key transitional technology that can make the methanol economy a reality.

Manufacturing a car as an FFV requires only the use of a corrosion-resistant fuel line and a change in the programming of the chip controlling the car’s electronic fuel injector. Thus FFVs can be produced—and currently are being produced in two dozen models, amounting to about 3 percent of total automobile sales in the United States—with essentially no price differential between them and comparable models that only use gasoline. As a result, there is no downside to making flex-fuel capability the standard. If it were required that all new cars sold in the United States had to be FFVs, there would be 50 million automobiles capable of burning methanol on the road in the U.S. within three years. Under such conditions, with methanol producible for a fraction of the cost of gasoline, the methanol pumps would appear soon enough, and the methanol economy envisioned by Olah and his collaborators would soon follow.

But one should not complain too much about the book’s omissions, since it maps out a viable technical approach for addressing our energy problems. They have shown us where to go; now it is time for policymakers to help get us there.

---

Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer, is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a research and development firm.

Robert Zubrin, "The Methanol Alternative," The New Atlantis, Number 13, Summer 2006, pp. 85-88.

[mamelukesabre]

Why do you think that is a problem? A fuel that absorbs H2O is a good thing. It means you will never get a chunk of ice in your gas tank.

[Delacon]

“Besides, ethanol can be produced from non-food crops just as surely as it can be produced from corn”

I don’t have the info handy but I know I read that ethanol requires plants high in starch or sugars in order to be efficiently produced. Not methanol.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

Please tell me what specifically is the food production problem? This country has, for decades and decades, produced more crops that it can consume. Add to mix that varieties of corn and beans are being developed that offer the possibility of huge yields in parts of the country where corn and beans have never been king.

Take my state, for example. There are farmers harvesting 200 bu/acre corn fairly regularly when 100 bu/acre was the norm a decade or two ago, due to the intense heat and humidity we endure. Cotton ground is being turned into corn ground at a head turning rate.

Same goes for wheat. Last year my husband and I averaged 90 bu/acre on our wheat harvest. That is almost unheard of here. This year there is wheat as far as the eye can see because new varieties are allowing us to take advantage of the good market price. With double-cropping, which we can do because of the long growing season that we enjoy here, cotton and grain sorghum will be planted behind the wheat.

[Delacon]

“Granted, much more work on methanol fuel-cell membranes to make it work, but this is a real possibility, except for the fact that it won’t rely on midwest corn - so it’s politicaly non-viable.”

Actually I read that an amendment to a bill to mandate Methanol adaptable cars was attached to a bill a few years back. It was removed by Trent Lott at the request of Japanese auto makers. Why I don’t know but man I can’t stand that guy.

[Delacon]

Are you telling me that all the articles I’ve read about how the increased demand for corn due to the ethanol mandate causing the increase in prices in corn based food stuffs and the meat/dairy industry are wrong? I’ll have to look into that. I’ll start here.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ethanol+causing+increase+dairy+prices

[mamelukesabre]

You might be thinking of propanol.

But as I remember, wood alcohol burns with an “invisible” flame. You have to turn the lights out to see the flame. That makes it kinda dangerous if you get it on your clothing and catch it on fire...it’s hard to put out a flame that you can’t see.

Then again, I might be getting methanol and propanol mixed up.

We’ve already got government mandated ethanol added to our gasoline. If this stuff is so great, why don’t we just make our ethanol additive a 50-50 mix of ethanol and methanol?

[Delacon]

“But as I remember, wood alcohol burns with an “invisible” flame. You have to turn the lights out to see the flame. That makes it kinda dangerous if you get it on your clothing and catch it on fire...it’s hard to put out a flame that you can’t see.”

Just as surely as we put in an additive to make natural gas stink, we can put in an additive to make methanol burn blue or some other color.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

Higher prices do not equal a problem in producing enough food. That is apparently where we are running into a communication problem. We have no problem producing enough ... you just don't want prices to rise.

If filling our tanks and heating our homes wasn't costing an arm and a leg, perhaps $4.50 for a gallon of milk wouldn't be quite as painful. Additionally, if grasses and wheat straw and other things that you seem to think don't get used for anything else are being utilized for methanol production, what about all of the land that currently produces hay for feeding to livestock?

I'm not convinced that there is enough scrub land in this country to produce everything needed for full scale methanol production. I certainly could be wrong. Do you have figures?

Methanol is not THE answer, but it is definitely part of the solution. There is no ONE solution. We need to develop many and let the winners lead the way and the other wither on the vine, so to speak. Solar works in some areas, wind in others. Unless we stop looking for THE solution, we are blinded by the problem.

[mamelukesabre]

Ethanol production is simple fermentation of sugar by yeast. It is possible to ferment complex starches by use of a mold called Aspergillus oryzae. The mold converts complex starches into simple sugars that the yeast can convert to ethyl(or ethanol), wich is drinkable alcohol.

The japanese invented this process to make rice wine...aka sake...pronounced “socky’.

But the fibrous matter, or cellulose, can only be converted to wood alcohol(methanol). As far as I know, that is. In the old days of bootlegging moonshine, a bad batch that killed people was simply a batch of grain alcohol(ethanol) that had been contaminated with a bit of wood alcohol. Bacteria produces wood alcohol. Yeast produces grain alcohol.

Then there is potato oil, or fusel oil. This is a nasty byproduct of normal fermentation that gives you a headache with your hangover.

[Hostage]

Look up Mobion fuel cell of Mechanical Technology Company (ticker MKTY). They have a patented process for water management in a methanol fuel cell.

[Goldwater and Gingrich]

“I applogize if the article covers this but methanol has a very high octane rating which allows much higher compression ratios.

Higher compression, better effiency. This partially makes up for the decreased energy content”

Octane equates to HP or MPG if the engine has a turbo on it.

Low octane is one of the reasons for the use of such large engines. A small 6 cylinder with a turbo at 20” of boost will make more power than a large V8.

It might be best to mix down to a 50/50 ratio of gas and methanol and let the computer adjust the timing.

A true flex fuel auto needs to have a turbo to change the effective compression ratio for burning different octane fuels.

There is a lot of ideas that could get us to about 50MPG for larger SUV’s but they will cost a little more.

So that $62,000 Escalate just might cost $70.000

[supercat]

Who is taking a bath in it? If there is a large accidental exposure, all you need is water.

I think one of the points earlier was that while methanol is toxic in high concentrations, it is harmless at low concentrations.

[RussP]

“What isn’t said is that methanol doesn’t have as much energy as gasoline, so you don’t get as good mileage.”

You obviously didn’t read the article.

[Delacon]

“Higher prices do not equal a problem in producing enough food. That is apparently where we are running into a communication problem. We have no problem producing enough ... you just don’t want prices to rise.”

I didn’t say higher prices are a problem in producing enough food. Don’t be disingenuous. I am saying higher prices for food are THE problem.

“If filling our tanks and heating our homes wasn’t costing an arm and a leg, perhaps $4.50 for a gallon of milk wouldn’t be quite as painful.”

Sorry but I want both. I want cheaper food and cheaper fuel for my car. I am crazy that way.

“Additionally, if grasses and wheat straw and other things that you seem to think don’t get used for anything else are being utilized for methanol production, what about all of the land that currently produces hay for feeding to livestock?

I’m not convinced that there is enough scrub land in this country to produce everything needed for full scale methanol production. I certainly could be wrong. Do you have figures?”

I honestly don’t know. I’ll look into it and get back to you but I am pretty sure I read that there is land a plenty available that can be used to grow only non food crops and non feed crops enough to meet our fuel demands. I want to point out though that in a head to head comparison between ethanol and methanol, ethanol loses no matter what because the land farmers are useing now for ethanol production could just as easily be used for methanol production and then there is all the other land not being used for anything right now but could be used to grow crops that only can be used to make methanol on top of that. A previous poster even pointed out that corn could be used to produce both at the same time. Ethanol only uses the starch of the corn, thats only a portion of the kernel. Methanol could be made from everything else in the seed and the stalk.

“Methanol is not THE answer, but it is definitely part of the solution. There is no ONE solution. We need to develop many and let the winners lead the way and the other wither on the vine, so to speak. Solar works in some areas, wind in others. Unless we stop looking for THE solution, we are blinded by the problem.”

I agree. I even have an article here where George Olah practically said the exact same thing you did there. But from what I am getting from this article is correct then methanol could be the biggest part of the solution.

[Delacon]

Thanks for the info.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“Isn’t methanol highly toxic?”

Don’t drink it.

[DragonMarine]

Ummm...
why not recycle the corn stalk to produce the methanol ???
we can grow all the corn we need, and the by-products (stalks and leaves) can be used to produce methanol...
Am I wrong?

[rmlew]

coal—>methanol

[djf]

Not an alternative. Not enough energy density.

[dangerdoc]

Find out how many acres are in the CRP program and what the CRP program is paying farmers to do with that land. The answer is quite illuminating.